Felines Koneczny also directs the reader’s attention to the matter of multiculturalism and the theory of the crossroads. It is based on the predicament that cultures which exist at the crossroads of civilizations are predestined to be richer, more valuable culturally and stronger intellectually. He states that the lack of criticism in the many benefits flowing form that idea lead to the birth of “one of the most absurd myths of modernity”. Were it to make any sense, then Russia would prove to be the leader of the world. He meticulously identifies as many as seven cultures which can be found within the great country27. Even if, sometimes it would be easy to disagree with the details, the Eastern giant was always, without a doubt a truly multicultural nation. Instead of making that trait the primary example set for humanity it was the source of a significant energy drain. Russia put so much effort during its long history in order to suppress internal nationality driven conflicts (Poland, Georgia, Ukraine, The Caucasus as a whole etc.). Much of its actions were driven by attempts to maintain unity instead of concentrating on more vital problems. This may be one of the reasons why the country is still quite backward. Civilizations simply have different goals, purposes and ideals, they cannot be merged or reconciled nor can they be conquered by sheer force. It is simplistically understood expansionism that made Russia what it is today.
27 Ibidem. p. 35-36.
84
Finally it should be made clear that the matter of synthesis of civilizations was based purely on an a priori method of analysis. It was a premeditated romantic and sentimental ideal of creating a universal society in which everyone could live together in harmony. Such concepts are usually utopian in nature. How can you expect harmony from two groups of people who have conflicting goals? It is a child’s wish that will probably never come true, for it is deemed impossible by philosophy and logic. Looking back at history one may easily notice that attempts at civilizational synthesis were always artificial and predestined to fail28. A new civilization can come into existence as an effect of the emergence of a new purpose/ideal or it can undergo significant decline and be dominated by another culture. There is simply no alternative.
Multiculturalism is a somewhat different concept then the one described in detail above, when the main goal of analysis is the full explanation of certain occurrences which make it difficult for a given culture to realize its purpose or the mission it believes it is a set to fulfil.
Synthesis means sacrificing some elements and truths of a given cultural order (system) and incorporating others in their place so that a new entity based on common methods of thinking, feeling and existence could be created – this group may otherwise be called a civilization.
Multiculturalism is simply about incorporating foreign elements of existence into an entity (society) which are unable to correspond with the given order of life29. These new methods of existence are unable to assist in achieving a certain cultures purpose if they were provoked into being by entirely different sentiments and beliefs. Incorporated elements
28 Ibidem. p. 249.
29 Koneczny F. Prawa... p. 260.
85
of a foreign origin can only disrupt a given culture from achieving a certain goal (or attempting to achieve it). They can tear the delicate fabric of a unique way of life, change the nature of a civilization and interrupt its sense of direction (movement, dynamism). The greatest risk of creating a multicultural environment artificially is that society will transform into an uncultured, chaotic mass without a certain unique purpose. Such a state would ensure its decline.
Oswald Spengler for example describes civilization as a living organism. It is difficult to fully agree with such Neo-Darwinist statements but society is surely something more than just a mechanism or group of people who agreed upon a „social contract”. It is also not merely founded on pure instinct, which transforms the actions of a group based on changes of the outside environment in accordance with a certain system. The German scholar presents the opposition between what “is alive” (as opposed to “dead” mechanical creations) and what is not. He believes that live entities are defined by their spiritual element and thus cannot be understood as machines put into movement by matter. In this case the term organism does not contain its typical meaning. Spengler uses it as a metaphor; if society is an organism then it contains an element of escaping the curbs of science and the possibility of empirical description – it is more complicated than a regular mechanism. It does not react in a given, predefined manner towards external change; its actions, in a way, cannot be predicted; they seem almost metaphysical30. The metaphor of an organism was also used by scholasticism in the Middle Ages in order to describe purpose
30 Spengler O. Zmierzch... p. 115-142.
86
in nature. This term is obviously very useful also when analysing the goal of every society, as long as it is understood purely as a metaphor31. The existence of a given entity has meaning only when it has a certain predefined goal that it strives to achieve; in other words it should act in accordance with the platonic „intention of existence”. Simply put: every element of a certain organism has to fulfil its purpose according to the goal of the whole. The head is responsible for leadership, the legs for walking etc. Their actions are brought into life automatically, simply because the mentioned body parts have been designed (by nature or God) to do so. The same could be said about a society, culture and civilization. It should be allowed to act based on instinct (which is the fruit of historical development), in accordance with its character and purpose. Its representatives should realize that when two legs move in an unsynchronized manner this may bring about the risk of tripping.
Oswald Spenger is positive, however that each society is determined to grow and develop to a certain moment and is bound to deteriorate one day anyway. Every civilization must face decadence, nihilism and die of natural causes.32 Feliks Koneczny is sceptical towards such theories. His argument is based on the fact that many ancient civilizations still exist and did not disappear whilst some were short-lived and fell into a period of decadence and decline. Ergo, societies do not simply die of old age as people do but are able to carry their traditions with them almost endlessly – unless of course they lose their sense of purpose and meaning – this in effect leads them to a state of adaptation: they either
31 St. Thomas Aquinas [1265?] 2006. O Królowaniu... [De Regno...].Kraków:
Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej. p. 43-61.
32 Spengler O. Zmierzch... p. 205-224.
87
yield to another civilization or fall into a state of deep depression and cease to exist33. According to Koneczny the primary reason for the fall of a society is the loss of its unique goals – this happens most often as an effect of multiculturalism, where a variety of unfamiliar ways of understanding reality are introduced. It is impossible to believe and/or acknowledge two contradicting truths/ points of view/ purposes of life etc. When the representatives of a society begin to do so it just stops being a society and becomes a group of different people united by one law and government – nothing more. This is also predetermined to be temporary. Every culture understands the concept of law differently;
every civilization has different sets of rules based on various historical and/or religious traditions/predicaments rooted in thousands of years of practice. It is naive and sentimental to believe that many cultures can happily live in a “modern”, “liberal” state – this is possible only in the case of its inventors; no one else will understand it nor truly acknowledge its purpose.
When certain elements of a given organism are motivated by disjointed sets of hopes, purposes and truths, then the whole entity is unable to achieve the originally intended goal. When a society completely loses its predefined traits and thus the purpose for its existence it becomes pointless to even analyse it.
A civilization can lose its unique direction as an effect of the simplest events, which by themselves should not under any circumstance, be subject to criticism. In neighbouring societies cultural contact between them as well as mutual impact are inevitable and
33 Ibidem. p. 115-142.
88
profound. Some “foreign cultural elements” are not a danger to the civilizational fabric of a society at all – inventions, simple customs and technical details can exist in full correlation with its purpose and goal34. The adaptation of external elements has to, however be in full accordance with the „law of proportion”. Feliks Koneczny notices (at the beginning of the 20th century) that occurrences typical for frontiers and border areas can now be found virtually everywhere. “We can now observe that two members of the same family can now belong to two different civilizations, even ones hostile to each other. This is evidence of a growing instability of beliefs, views – even terms and ideas, as well as the growing uncertainty of purpose and the meaning of existence of individuals35”. Not so long ago we could witness the disappearance of ancient and noble families of the past. Each owed its allegiance to one stable and continuous meaning for ages, which could be decrypted for example from their medieval coats of arms. They were loyal to the traditions of their ancestors. One could expect a certain predefined way of thinking and analysis from a given noble family for decades, even though they married representatives of the aristocracy from many different nations (but usually within one civilization). Today, the respect for tradition and duty has virtually disappeared and one can observe that individual views are no longer shaped by the family.
It looks as though Feliks Koneczny attempts to blame the decline of Western Civilization on different cultures. This is no doubt a serious mistake. Dadaism, turpism, surrealism, futurism etc. were not the fruits of foreign thought. The relativist point of view is uniquely Western, no
34 Ibidem. p. 260.
35 Ibidem. p. 260.
89
one else thought of it but us. Every civilization has a profound feeling of righteousness – it is absolutely sure that the direction which it chose over the centuries is the right one. There are certain implications based on which one may call a society a civilization. They are inspired by a belief in a certain purpose and meaning. The West seems to have lost its sense of direction. Instead of reflecting upon the matter of multiculturalism and the synthesis of cultures one should rather create a new category: anticivilization. This entity did not evolve as an effect of an energy drain caused by the influx of foreign cultures as Koneczny would like but as the fruit of The French Revolution. It is without a doubt that attempts at synthesis or creating a multinational state may have an effect on the feeling of purpose of a given society, but living next to someone of a strong sense of identity can also serve as an inspiration to revive our own sets of values. In practice a more diverse society can lead to stronger feelings of civilizational patriotism and self-definition. It often happens that a given culture can incorporate foreign elements and thus enrich its heritage. In the case of Hinduism for example there is no doubt that without its special characteristic, based on the ability to provide a unique way of understanding others and giving meaning to cultural values stemming from the outside, it would not last for such a long time. If not for the fact that each foreign truth could not be meticulously and quite accurately (with broad understanding) added to the system, that system would probably decompose. Its tolerance should not be understood in the modern meaning of the word, ergo; everyone has their own truth and we should respect that because we do not really know what truth is. The Hindu civilization says rather – every truth is in accordance with our truth; if it
90
is not, then we will make it so. Instead of attacking it tries to prove the futility of the classic form of conflict. It fights rather in the intellectual and mystic spheres. This special kind of tolerance makes the mentioned culture very resilient and powerful; it takes what it can, enriching its heritage without in any way destroying its foundations – everything is modified in accordance with its main set of beliefs. However, one should mention the fact that Hinduism never could really incorporate or tame Islam. The conclusion can be twofold therefore: the “law of history”, as Felix Koneczny calls it, concerning the futility of multiculturalism and the synthesis of civilizations is not entirely accurate. Sometimes multiculturalism provides the best results for a given culture, but it is very often the other way around as well.
Historiosophy does not really give a certain answer, but provides a broader spectrum which enables an individual to really understand the meaning of such words as tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism;
instead of just repeating them aimlessly as an element of fashionable modern propaganda36.
3. Conclusion
There are numerous examples in history which prove that multiculturalism as well as its other form based on the synthesis of civilizations are ideals that are incredibly difficult to achieve in practice.
If a given society really wishes to put them to life its elites should feel obliged and compelled to rely not only on empty words and goodwill but also on historical evidence and experience stemming from the past.
36 Ibidem. p. 118-124; Koneczny F. Prawa... p. 261.
91
It is possible for different cultures to live together happily, whilst enriching their heritage, but in order to do that all of these cultures have to believe in a certain form of truth. If one of these societies is decadent and increasingly nihilist it is bound to be spiritually conquered by others. This is a conclusion, which cannot be ignored when attempting to bring such ideas to life – for with noble ideals it is always profoundly difficult to do so.
92
Bibliography
1. St. Thomas Aquinas [1265?] 2006. O Królowaniu... [De Regno...].Kraków: Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej. p. 43-61.
2. Arystoteles, Metafizyka [Aristotle, Metaphisics].
3. R. Baubock. “What went wrong with liberal multiculturalism”.
etn.sagepub.com/content/8/2/271.extract. p. 271-275 (January 18 2014).
4. R. Cuperus. 2011. “Why the Left was Trapped Into Multiculturalism”.
http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/06/why-was-the-left-trapped-into-multiculturalism/. (January 18, 2014).
5. O. Decker, M. Weissman, J. Kiess, E. Brahler. 2010. „Die Mitte in der Kreise: Rechtextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2010“.
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/do/07504-20120321.pdf. (January 18, 2014).
6. D. Frum. 2010. “Germanys Merkel is Right- Multiculturalism Has Failed”. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10- 18/opinion/frum.merkel.multicultural_1_germany-s-merkel-chancellor-merkel-angela-merkel?_s=PM:OPINION. (January 18, 2014).
7. Koneczny F. [1935] 2002. O wielości cywilizacyj [On the Plurality of Civilizations]. Komorów: Wydawnictwo Antyk.
8. Koneczny F. 2001. Państwo i prawo w Cywilizacji Łacińskiej.
Komorów: Wydawnictwo Antyk; Koneczny F. 1997. Prawa Dziejowe [On the Laws of History]. Komorów: Wydawnictwo Antyk; Koneczny F. [1935] 2002.
9. “Merkel Says German Multicultural Society Has Failed”. 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451. (January 18, 2014).
10. Plato. Fajdros i Uczta in: Dialogi [Plato, Dialogues]
93
11. H. Seehofer. 2010. “Multikulti ist tot”.
http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/horst-seehofer-multikulti-ist-tot/3563806.html. (January 18, 2014).
12. J. Smee. 2010. “The World From Berlin: Merkel’s Rhetoric in
integration Debate is Inexcusable”.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-world-from-berlin-merkel-s-rhetoric-in-integration-debate-is-inexcusable-a-723702.html.
(January 18, 2014)\
13. Spengler O. [1959] 2001. Zmierzch Zachodu [Der Untergang Des Abendlandes]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo KR. p. 192-208.
14. M. Weaver. 2010. “Angela Merkel: Multiculturalism has “utterly failed””. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed. (January 18, 2014).
94 Dorota Stasiak
–
Think Tanks in Poland: Policy Experts at the Crossroads
Abstract1
Development of the think tank sector in post-communist states is, at times, regarded as a self-evident consequence of the processes of democratization. However, the specific “environment of obstacles and opportunities” makes it neither automatic, nor easy for think tanks of the region to join the policy game. In particular, it is not clear to what extent the think tanks in transition democracies can or should engage in strictly political disputes. The alleged shift from academic towards advocacy profiles that is said to characterize Western think tanks evokes numerous questions in post-communist settings.
The paper provides an analysis of the development of the think tank sector in Poland and the challenges it faces on its way towards
"maturity". It aims at getting some insights into perspectives of think tanks themselves. Building on a qualitative analysis of think tanks’
mission statements, survey data and interviews with think tank managers, it analyses how they construct their positions of policy experts at the crossroads between politics, science, business and the media.
Keywords: think tanks, policy analysis, boundary work, expertise
1 Paper prepared for presentation at the IPSA XXII World Congress, ‘Reshaping power, shifting boundaries’, Madrid 8‐12 July 2012
96 Introduction
The processes of democratic transformation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have made it clearer than ever that, as Hugo Heclo explains,
Politics find its sources not only in power but also in uncertainty – men collectively wondering what to do.
[…] Governments not only ‘power’ (or whatever the verb form of that approach might be); they also puzzle.
Policy-making is a form of collective puzzlement on society’s behalf; it entails both deciding and knowing.2
The necessity of knowing in order to decide – particularly in the context of transformation – makes it inevitable for “the world of politics” to seek expert advice. Even if modern experts do not rule, as the followers of the technocratic model of knowledge-politics relations would have it, they definitively have a say. According to Sheila Jasanoff,
Experts have become indispensable to the politics of nations, and indeed to transnational and global politics.
Experts manage the ignorance and uncertainty that are endemic conditions of contemporary life and pose
2 Hugh Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance (Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn, 1974), 305.
Cited after Richard Freeman, "Learning in Public Policy," in The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, ed. Michael Moran, Martin Rein, and Robert E.
Goodin (2006: Oxford University Press), 372.
major challenges to the managerial pretentions and political legitimacy of democratically accountable governments. Faced with ever-changing arrays of issues and questions – based on shifting facts, untested technologies, incomplete understandings of social behavior and unforeseen environmental externalities – governments need the backing of experts to assure citizens that they are acting responsibly, in good faith, and with adequate knowledge and foresight. The weight of political legitimation rests therefore increasingly on the shoulders of experts, and yet they occupy at best a shadowy place in the evolving discourse of democratic theory.3
This “shadowy” position of experts may have to do with the fact that experts are not (or perhaps: no more) easy to classify along the knowledge-politics divide. The paradox is that expertise, which at times is expected to make politics less “political” (that is: more rational, evidence-based) is not as “apolitical” (that is: free of values or ideology) as it may seem.4 It would be hard to deny that knowledge has become
3 Sheila Jasanoff, "Judgement under Siege. The Three-Body Problem of Expert
3 Sheila Jasanoff, "Judgement under Siege. The Three-Body Problem of Expert